V.B.Melhotra, J. - (1.) In this petition the challenge is to an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on September 26, 1984 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition) by which he has said that the Manager in the institution who is to be recognised is Sri Hakim Singh Upadhyaya. He has also observed in the order that the election for the Committee of Management may be held on expiry of the period of the present Committee of Management in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. The case of the petitioner is that on expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, elections were duly held on August 31, 1.84 where after they came into management and that the Manager of the Committee so constituted was Dr. Raghubir Singh Upadhyaya. This was said by the petitioners in their reply sent to the District Inspector of Schools, in response to enquiry (sic) by him, through communication dated September 26, 1984 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). In that communication, the petitioner had taken the stand that there is no dispute in regard to the Committee of Management.
(2.) On October 11, 1984, this Court directed the petitioner to serve Sri Hakim Singh Upadhyaya who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. Sri Hakim Singh Upadhyaya has put in appearance and filed a counter affidavit in which the stand of the second respondent and the committee said to be headed by him is disclosed.
(3.) Sri Ashok Bhushan appearing for the petitioner has urged before us that even on assumption that there was some dispute in regard to the Committee of Management, the same could only be resolved by the Deputy Director of Education in accordance with the provisions of Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and not by the District Inspector of Schools. He prayed that the impugned order be quashed. The stand of the second respondent, however, is that on the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, the while Committee with the Second respondent as the Manager was continuing to manage the Institution. It has also been asserted by the second respondent that no election as alleged by the petitioners ever took place.;